. The 48 Republican Senators who voted to approve S.3, pledged that, "the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned".

Disgusting, even the conservative party has gone liberal.Does anyone know of a conservative party in America?

251
posted on 08/05/2003 4:39:21 PM PDT
by wgeorge2001
("The truth will set you free.")

I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death-- people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.

This and her description of the procedure above (which I do not have the heart to read) are almost enough to make me wish there isn't a God. That way He won't get mad when he sees the utter barbarity on display here.

C'mon, you're just parroting the anti-GOP propaganda. It was NOT the Republicans who approved the detestable Roe vs Wade clause. That was inserted and approved by the DEMOCRATS and a handful of pro-abortion Republicans (the usual suspects).

And this is why I hate to have this kind of propaganda posted to FR. People keep repeating the lies over and over and over. Sheesh. How about doing a little background work of your own. Who voted for and against the bill? Who voted for and against the Harkin amendment? No, you'd rather just keep repeating the lie. Your agenda is obvious.

Are we now to believe that the GOP haters who oppose this legislation, ie, the Libertarians, paleocons, Buchananites, Reformers, and, apparently, the Constitution Party, along with the Democrats, Socialists, liberals, et al, are correct

Yeah I know, I promised to drop out. But I can't leave without correcting any impression you may have that I belong in the above mentioned groups. I have been voting and working for the Republican party since before most of you were born (1958). I have never voted for a Democrat, Libertarian, Buchananite, Perotista, Constitution party, etc. I voted for GW Bush, and I voted for his father twice. In fact, I have never NOT voted for the Republican candidate in any national election in which I was qualified to vote. But at age 66 I have finally hit the wall. My old fashioned style of American is no longer represented by any party, and I don't owe any of them my vote or my loyalty.

A ban on partial-birth abortion is well on its way to becoming law, after the House approved it late yesterday on a 282-139 vote.

"After eight long years, Congress will finally send the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act to a president willing to sign it," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican.

"The debate over the rights of the unborn will continue, and new battles will be fought. But in the meantime, the American people will take this one stand ... on behalf of the innocent," he said.

Voting for the bill were 220 Republicans and 62 Democrats. Voting against it were 133 Democrats, five Republicans and the chamber's lone independent. Three Republican and 10 Democratic lawmakers did not vote.

Congress has twice passed a ban on partial-birth abortion, but both measures were vetoed by President Clinton, and although the House overrode the vetoes, the Senate did not.

In a statement after the vote last night, President Bush called it "a shared priority that will help build a culture of life in America."

...A Gallup poll in January found that 70 percent of the public favors a ban on the procedure.

The key difference between the nearly identical House and Senate partial-birth-abortion-ban bills is that the Senate adopted language on the floor reaffirming the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The House bill contains no such language, and Republicans said this language will be removed in conference.

The Administration strongly supports enactment of H.R. 760, which would ban an abhorrent procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. The bill is narrowly tailored and exempts those procedures necessary to save the life of the mother.

Partial-birth abortion is a procedure that is not accepted by the medical community. Approximately 30 States have attempted to ban it. The Administration strongly believes that enactment of H.R. 760 is both morally imperative and constitutionally permissible.

The Administration strongly opposes any amendment to the bill that would limit its application to a time after the child is determined to be viable, which could allow this procedure to be used as late as the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy. The Administration supports the exception for procedures necessary to save the life of the mother, but strongly opposes any amendments to create additional exceptions because these exceptions may create open-ended loopholes and allow the use of the procedure even in the third trimester.

"in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother". Or "in the case of breech presentation", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)

Mr. Robinson, speaking as one of the few pro-choice conservatives on FR, let me say that even I think that this article was a sick hack-job.

I actually think that the ban, as passed, is a good thing. This procedure should be outlawed;or at least restricted severely.

Having said that, I would point out some of the responses that you are refuting...as always, when this issue comes up, rational, logical discussion seems to become impossible through all the fire-and-brimstone.

The politicians we all are trying to influence to our side on a host of other, equally important issues, do not fail to see this.

Kudos, then, to yourself and FR for exposing this insidious attempt to slander and debase our President.

I actually think that the ban, as passed, is a good thing. This procedure should be outlawed;or at least restricted severely.

The question is what has been outlawed? If a third-trimester child can still be sliced and diced like steak in a cuisanart inside the womb--and the abortionists simply shift to doing it there--what really has been accomplished?

"This and her description of the procedure above (which I do not have the heart to read) are almost enough to make me wish there isn't a God. That way He won't get mad when he sees the utter barbarity on display here. "

You are better off not reading it. It made me cry. (and I don't do that just from reading stuff usually)

272
posted on 08/05/2003 6:54:49 PM PDT
by honeygrl
(I reserve the right to take any statement and copy it out of context.)

The question is what has been outlawed? If a third-trimester child can still be sliced and diced like steak in a cuisanart inside the womb--and the abortionists simply shift to doing it there--what really has been accomplished?

Well, assuming that the remaining allowed abortion procedures would appear to require more technical skill, perhaps the abortionist can charge a higher fee for late-term abortions.

This is a step in the right direction, albeit still just a small step. But anything beyond a step is impossible today. It is very easy to attack the President over this it doesnt put an end to abortion. But what do the complainers offer up in exchange?

When has the libertarian party ever succeeded in pushing a bill through Congress involving abortion? Other then abandoning it when politically expedient, what has pat buchanans contributions been to stopping the murder of the unborn? Which Senators from the Constitution Party opposed Roe-v-Wade?

Its very simple to attack those who have actually done something, but what do they offer in exchange? The only way we are ever going to put an end to this hideous practice is to insure that a Conservative Supreme Court becomes a reality and remains in place for decades to come. That means we have to reelect President Bush and give him the greatest Congressional majority possible.

Or we can sit on the sidelines, complain and accomplish nothing whatsoever other then perhaps actually hinder this progress.

277
posted on 08/05/2003 7:13:04 PM PDT
by CWOJackson
(Smile for the loonys over there...)

In what can only be described as the mildest abortion restrictions that one could possibly put into words, Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother". Or "in the case of breech presentation", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)

No, you assumed that everyone who supported this was a Republican, you don't know that, and you weren't talking about me.

"Yes, I'd assumed the reaction to the "betrayal" position being a rapid support of Mr. Bush indicated you and others were concerned about the political aspects of the bill rather than whether it would work as advertised."

You again assumed that everyone who supports the bill, or doesnt see the bill as a betrayal also supports Bush you dont know that either, so I was right about you making broadline assumptions and generalizations.

Now, I did notice your shift, youre talking about late term abortions, this was never discussed when this bill was going through the legislative process, and the only thing that Bush ever spoke about was banning partial birth abortions so what you are doing is giving everyone crap because this bill does not address late term abortions it was never intended to, and had you been paying any attention at all the entire time this was being discussed in Congress, you would have not been surprised by the posting of a three month old article from a presidential candidate that needs to strip Bush of some votes in order to have any kind of relevancy.

Thats what kills me, you talk about me and others standing in support of this bill as a political ploy , yet, the ones who are obviously politicizing this are those condemning a bill they never read until it was passed. Where the hell was all the activism before this point?

You, Uncle Bill, Merc, and the bunch over at LostPriviledges.com dont give a rats ass about the aborted babies, this is politics to you all.

287
posted on 08/05/2003 8:20:45 PM PDT
by Luis Gonzalez
(The Knight Has A Thousand Names)

Those who wish to use it politically are calling it a betrayal; obviously, there was not much of a "betrayal" when it was going through the legislative process, otherwise some of these "champions of truth" would have been squawking long before this.

The timing of the post is also significant, this article was first posted on that site back in May, where were all these conservatives before now?

If these guys are representative of the pro-life movement, it could very well be that the GOP is the only chance the unborn have left in this world...these "pro-lifers" paid absolutely no attention to this bill as it worked its way through Congress.

What the hell were they doing?

Probably bitching about JimRob over at LostPriviledges.com, now, they've found something new to bitch about.

294
posted on 08/05/2003 8:40:01 PM PDT
by Luis Gonzalez
(LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Ladies, it seems that our friend Fred objects to this passage in the Partial Birth Abortion ban passed by Congress. I have questioned him on whether he believes that once a woman becomes pregnant, her life becomes secondary to the life of the fetus to the point where a PBA should not be performed, even if going through the pregnancy means a heightened risk of death to the mother.

I am interested in his answer. Are you all?

296
posted on 08/05/2003 8:46:52 PM PDT
by Luis Gonzalez
(LP is bragging that they got over 100 new members this month...they were all me guys :-))

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.